Loading...
101-Draft Minutes 07-10-2012.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. July 10, 2012 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2012 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the June 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Brophy: • Noted that the vote on Approval of Minutes for May 8 and May 22, 2012 should read: 4-0-0 MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Vice Chair Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the June 12, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: • Gary Chao, City Planner, noted a letter received regarding Item 2, Political Signs; and a letter submitted by Aarti Shrivastava which he had not yet reviewed. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Cathy Helgersan, resident: • Expressed concern about the excessive pollution from the LeHigh Cement Plant and provided contact numbers for the community to contact the Bay Area Air Quality Control (BAAQC) to Cupertino Planning Commission July 10, 2012 2 report the emissions (800-224-6367). She requested that the Planning Department advise the City Council to sue LeHigh on behalf of the citizens of Cupertino; and stated that the pollution is flowing over into Cupertino polluting the air, water and soil. • She noted that the plant does not shut down during Spare the Air Days; the BAAQC has done nothing and refuses to cite them any longer; and the EPA and State Water Board does nothing about the pollution violations. She asked for community support and said she would continue to attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to voice her concerns. She asked for the Planning Commission’s support and to take the matter seriously as it negatively affects all Cupertino families. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Said that the speaker has been advised that the city does not have jurisdiction over LeHigh matters and was notified of the agencies that monitor them, as well as a website devoted to Lehigh matters. PUBLIC HEARING 2. MCA--2012-01 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.104 (Sign Ordinance) City of Cupertino regarding the placement of temporary political signs in the right- Citywide Location of-way. Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for the Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.104 Sign Ordinance, regarding the placement of temporary political signs, as outlined in the attached staff report. In the last year, the city has received questions and concerns regarding the ordinance on political signs; in response to that staff has initiated an ordinance amendment process to consider clarifying and revising the sign ordinance. The primary focus of the ordinance amendment entails clarifying regulations regarding the location where political signs are allowed and adding language to clarify the enforcement process. • He explained that the primary focus of the ordinance amendment entails clarifying regulations regarding the location where political signs are allowed; also adding language to clarify the enforcement process. The current ordinance allows political signs in public right-of-way only in residential and institutional zones; the ordinance does encourage but not require adjacent property owners’ consent for the signs to be placed along the park strip in front of their property. He said that the enforcement process is not entirely clear, particularly referring to the impound fee or penalties, and when the city can collect the signs. As part of the exercise, staff conducted research of 15 surrounding cities to ascertain their roles and policies in governing political signs. He summarized that all but one city prohibited temp signs within public right-of-way or public property and only Mountain View allows political signs on public property, with a pre-approved list of sites where they allow signs to be located. • He explained the sign reclamation process in different cities, as outlined in the staff report. • Staff is proposing to revise the ordinance language to prohibit the display of political signs within public right-of-way or on any public properties; and also change the ordinance to clarify that the applicability of the sign collection fee would apply to the responsible party whether or not they collect their signs after the city has picked them up. Language has also been clarified that political signs be considered de minimus signs which is a sign of little value in terms of its construction and materials, and the ordinance is proposed to be changed to allow the de minimus signs to be disposed of by the city if not claimed within three days. The ordinance proposes to add a one-time disposal fee for the signs that are not reclaimed. There are no other changes proposed for other types of temporary signs. Cupertino Planning Commission July 10, 2012 3 • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed amendments in accordance with the model resolution. The project is exempt from CEQA. • Staff answered questions relative to the different regulations pertaining to realtors’ signs and political signs. City Attorney: • Said that the issue is that the property owner is the one who decides what they want to say, and when talking about the public right-of-way it is the public property; the public entity is basically saying they do not want to be engaged in this speech; you can put a sign on your front lawn, or put a sign on your building, but that is because it is your property and it is your speech; as opposed to putting the sign on the public property then it arguably becomes the speech of the public, and the city is saying they are not engaging in that. Discussion continued regarding signs on public rights-of-way. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com. Brophy: • Said after reading the ordinance and the summaries of the other cities, he felt that the ordinances are being placed for the convenience of the city staff, the Public Works Department so that they don’t have to arbitrate issues. • He said he understood that it is a valid reason to consider such an issue, and referred to the opening language from the city of Mountain View which he felt should be the determining factor: “the freedom of political expression and the exchange of political ideas are fundamental principles of our constitutional system and an integral part of a free society; the purpose and intent of this article is to provide minimum regulations regarding the posting, maintenance, and removal of political signs”. Fifteen cities except Cupertino have taken the position that the administrative convenience of their Public Works Department is more important than the values that were previously expressed. • Said the issue is that supposedly people are putting signs in front of somebody’s house that they didn’t ask for; all that needs to be done is to change the rules so that the property owners or renters have control over the parking strip there, and that when they call to complain, the solution is not Code Enforcement or Public Works, it is whoever staffs the call and tells them if they didn’t put it there and don’t support it, they can throw it away. It is a solution in search of a problem and adds complexity to the issue. He said that candidates for political office face many challenges and they should find ways not to add to the candidates’ burdens. He suggested they recommend to City Council that they move on and focus on other issues. Gary Chao: • Clarified that there have been complaints regarding the blightness and number of signs within the public right-of-way or park strips; and although some complain about signs in front of their homes, they also see them when driving around town, and don’t like the fact that the candidates are using public land toward their cause. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt the issue people complain about is not so much a sign in front of somebody’s house on the parking strip, but the signs placed illegally on private properties, such as Shell Gas Station, Beacon Station, etc. They are unsightly and messy and the property owners have the right to get rid of the signs regardless of what the city’s ordinance is. Cupertino Planning Commission July 10, 2012 4 Com. Lee: • Said she felt they should find a way to allow the political signs in the public right-of-way provided they have the adjacent property owner’s consent; and she was opposed to any disposal fees, impound or collection fees. If a sign is placed in an illegal place, city staff would remove it and store it for 20 calendar days, as any other sign. If a political sign is found on public property, it should be subject to immediate removal by the city which is what staff is recommending and has been in place so far, and other cities are presently doing that. • She asked for input on having a section of the ordinance that prohibits unlawful removal or interference of local signs, which would read: “It shall be unlawful and in violation of this article to deface, remove, alter, make additions to or conceal a political sign without the consent of the candidate or in the case of ballot measures, the sponsor of the particular ballot measure position.” Com. Brownley: • Asked for clarification before providing comment on Com. Lee’s suggestion; if the language would be compatible or would it be difficult to have that language with Com. Brophy’s comments to simplify the process and have language stating, that if the private property owner didn’t agree to this sign being in the public right-of-way in front of the private property, the owner could remove it. He said he felt that the language suggested by Com. Lee may be a contradiction to that. Com. Lee: • Said it was not in contradiction; it is still illegally placed, so either the city can remove it if the candidate doesn’t have permission in the public right-of-way by the adjacent property owner. Either the city can remove it or the private property owner which is adjacent to the strip can remove it. City Attorney: • Said that it may present conflicting situations; there would be people arguing whether or not there was permission, whether or not something was illegal and whether or not whatever the person did was acceptable for them to do. She opined that it would create an enforcement nightmare for the city; therefore they would have to decide one way or another, but not do both. Com. Brownley: • Said the previous Commission considered, instead of making it illegal to place them in public right-of-way, creating alternative language stating “if placed in public right-of-way in front of your private property and you don’t approve of that you can remove it.” Com. Brophy: • Concurred, and said that in effect it was assigning a property right to the property in front of the park strip, because the park strip has a quasi-private nature to it, stating that the enforcement process is that if somebody puts a sign in the front of his house, he has the right to remove it; just as he would if they put the sign in his yard. • Pointed out that many of the permanent real estate signs are in the parking strips as seen when driving around the city; things function normally and Code Enforcement manages to get through the day without turmoil. He said he didn’t anticipate it being any different; and suggested they have a self-enforcing mechanism. Cupertino Planning Commission July 10, 2012 5 Vice Chair Sun: • Said he concurred with Com. Brophy on attempting to resolve the issue administratively. He said he felt trying to enforce the new regulations relative to collection of fees would only invite more problems for the city in his opinion; and there were other ways to solve it rather than going to another level to infringe the basic right to guide the people. • He said the benefit to Cupertino should be considered and it can be solved piece by piece, not jumping around to other levels. He said he felt the proposal was a step too far. Chair Miller: • Said that having gone through the political process three times, he was aware of the trials and tribulations of dealing with the issues and signs, and categorized it into three aspects: (1) The annoyance/nuisance value that neighbors or people put up with during the political process. He agreed with Com. Brophy’s comments that the city’s political process is unique, cultural and traditional and for a short period. He said he was disappointed with the low voter turnouts and to some extent could argue that the signs heighten awareness of a fundamental right and responsibility of citizens to go out and vote. (2) An increase in enforcement has been proposed which will require additional resources, and even at additional resource levels it will be difficult to enforce. The focus has been on park strips; most signs go up in the park strips in front of houses and most people putting up signs ask for permission to put the signs up. A comment was made by staff that sometimes it is a surrogate for the applicant and those things do happen and some of that is done improperly and illegally. (3) Fairness relative to the different candidates. Said he has seen candidates putting up signs that hide other signs; he has gone out himself to place signs and when returning the next day the signs were gone and he repeated the process only to find the signs repeatedly removed. Said he agreed with Com. Lee that they should address that issue; however, he did not see it as enforceable. Similarly, most of the signs in neighborhoods go up in the median strips for various reasons; the homeowner says he wants to put the sign up but not on his lawn because of various maintenance issues, and suggests putting it on the median strip. • Said he supported Com. Brophy’s suggestion, that rather than making it illegal and putting the burden on the city to enforce it, requiring phone calls and fee collections, he agreed they should make it legal in the median strips in front of private residences; with the permission of the homeowner and if to the extent the homeowner can be given the power to remove it if they choose to, they can always remove their permission. It is a way to settle it within the community as opposed to having the city be superimposed and being the enforcer, and having to devote additional resources to dealing with it. By making it legal at the discretion of the homeowner, is solving problems rather than adding to them. • Said that other public areas where signs are placed include the median strip on DeAnza Boulevard, up and down Foothill Boulevard on what appears to be private property; in the underpass on Foothill and 280 which is Caltrans. He said all those should continue to be considered illegal, but the major issues happen in the neighborhoods and he would prefer to address that by giving the power to the homeowner to decide whether he wants it there or not and have the power to remove it. • He said that following the election, most candidates make a good faith effort to either pick up the signs or have someone else pick them up. For those signs that are not picked up, it is the appropriate time for the city to pick them up and charge a fee to the sign owner/candidate Vice Chair Sun: • Said he concurred. Cupertino Planning Commission July 10, 2012 6 Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 that relative to temporary political signs, the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they not accept the proposed changes by staff; but instead the city enact a policy of recognizing the rights of property owners or residents to have control over what signs go in the park strip in front of their house; and that as a policy the city inform any residents who are given a sign or have a sign that they don’t want there, to be informed they have a right to remove it; fees relative to picking up, storing and getting rid of signs go with the current ordinance. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting MAYOR’S MONTHLY MEETING: • Com. Brownley said he attended the meeting and would present a report of the meeting at the next Planning Commission meeting. . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. • Aarti Shrivastava reported that the Biltmore application would be going to City Council; in terms of projects coming to the Planning Commission, she reported there were a number of large projects that would be brought forward to the Planning Commission; in the future. • She discussed a recent article on the affordable housing decision in San Jose, which she said had no implications for Cupertino. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled on August 14, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. (The July 24 meeting will be cancelled) Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary